Search IFC Entities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context such as partial name matching, description text search, and the return fields (name, layer, schema, short definition). It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by a list of return fields, parameter descriptions, examples, and default values. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format and pagination. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly, though adding explicit mention of the response format behavior would strengthen completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example values for the query parameter (e.g., 'Wall', 'beam', 'spatial') and explaining pagination with limit and offset, which enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches IFC4.3 entities by name or description keyword, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('IFC Entities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ifc_get_entity (which likely retrieves a single entity) by focusing on search with partial matching and text search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (searching entities by keyword) and gives examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, but the use case is well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.